I think I am done entering Homebrew Competitions

[therainmaker]

Edit: do it Man!

 

[TobyG]

I would love to be a judge. That said, I'm not so interested that I am going to wait 6 months to drive 4-5 hours to take a test.

I'm a glutton for punishment. I drove 7.5 hours (one way) and stayed the night before and after (and obviously drove 7.5 hours back). Still haven't received my results yet. On the other hand, there are no local exams because there aren't enough local judges (there are only 2 proctors in the state). That's never going to change unless I play my part in changing it. I'm going for National to both become a proctor and a grader.

 

[jessup]

Hard for me to believe that in one comp a month earlier a Grand Master II gave it a 37 and the next comp the scores/comments are ENTIRELY different.

i hear this completely. I have won BOS and 2nd place BOS with my particular flemish red and somehow it didn't achieve a score of 30 in the nashville NHC judging. very hard to believe. and i'm STILL waiting for my score sheets to see what the issue was and get some feedback. it's truly a friggin amazing brew when i pop a bottle and taste it so it's beyond me how it didn't move on to finals.

i have alot of respect for judges and plan on going for the BJCP eventually to help out, but there are some things that go beyond comprehension. i enjoy my brews so i'm not personally too worried about what joe schmoe thinks about them. i really like getting ribbons, though

 

[stpug]

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

 

[jmitchell3]

Not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek, but that's really a tough type of feedback to expect. One of the primary guidelines for BJCP judges is not to assume or suggest you know anything about the beer's process (e.g. don't assume a particular beer was extract or AG). The feedback that judges are expected to provide is more recipe-oriented or broad process-related (i.e. general sanitation suggestions). All I can do as a judge is report what I'm smelling, seeing, and tasting. For good process related feedback, I would need more of an interactive Q&A with a brewer, which is not what competition judging is about.

Well I hear what you are saying and the distinction is well taken. However, as a new homebrewer, I know (intellectually) what diacetyl is and what causes it, but I have no idea what it tastes like. Got a scoresheet last comp that identified diacetyl, tasted my beer again while reading the scoresheet, and yup, sure enough there it is. Looked back at my batch notes and saw I had pitched warm and only gave it 10 days in the fermenter. Bam, that's what caused it. Will I repeat that mistake? Nope. Did the judge help me with my process? Yup. Plus now I know what diacetyl tastes like and can identify when I've got that problem now. Even though judges should not assume by identifying a specific process as cause for a flaw, simply identifying the flaw may be all I'm looking for to help me identify the issues with my process.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[Yooper]

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

I don't smoke.

 

[passedpawn]

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

I am an non-smoker, but I'd love to get into it some day. I miss it dearly

 

[gbx]

In regards to my complaint that they it becomes a "clone the first commercial example" contest

People like to moan about how restrictive the BJCP guidelines are, but truthfully, there is enough room to differentiate your entry recipe-wise from the others for the bulk of the categories.

This is also not, necessarily, bad advice or feedback. On the Podcast referenced earlier, Gordon Strong stated that the commercial examples are actually listed in order of best representation in the guidelines. So, even if your beer is within the guidelines, that "first commercial example" is actually sort of the benchmark for the style - and suggesting things that would make our beers more like that beer is technically what the competition is about(rightly or wrongly.)

I agree with Darwin18 and I believe so does Gordon Strong (I listened to the podcast). Case in point http://www.bjcp.org/course/ClassicStyles.php Not once does he deduct the 2nd commercial example for not being exactly like the first. The first commercial example is the prototypical/dead centre of the style but the other examples are not out of style (a scoresheet for Celebrator shouldn't include style deductions or recipe suggestions to make it more like Salvator). This is a big problem with the import styles with judges who haven't travelled to the region or actively studied the style. (ie. don't tell me a bitter should never be dry hopped or refer to styrian goldings as "an inappropriate c-hop character")

Not only are we unpaid, but we spend our own money to travel to judge competitions and to further our education and credentials!...

...No one becomes a BJCP judge to "get free beer". I have heard that one alot. Trust me, many of the beers in competition are problematic and I've judged many many bad beers that I wouldn't choose to sit down and enjoy. We do it for the love of the craft, to help fellow brewers by scoring their beers objectively, and to learn more about brewing ourselves.

I don't know if brewers are even getting paid these days. Yes, judging is unpaid but its not like we are saints or anything. If you love beer and brewing, its fun to sit down and nerd out, trying to figure out whats wrong with the bad ones and calibrating your palate. And the process of becoming a judge is something I'd recommend to anyone interested in brewing even if you aren't into competitions. For purely selfish reasons, you will learn a lot and it will help your brewing.

 

[TobyG]

Well I hear what you are saying and the distinction is well taken. However, as a new homebrewer, I know (intellectually) what diacetyl is and what causes it, but I have no idea what it tastes like. Got a scoresheet last comp that identified diacetyl, tasted my beer again while reading the scoresheet, and yup, sure enough there it is. Looked back at my batch notes and saw I had pitched warm and only gave it 10 days in the fermenter. Bam, that's what caused it. Will I repeat that mistake? Nope. Did the judge help me with my process? Yup. Plus now I know what diacetyl tastes like and can identify when I've got that problem now. Even though judges should not assume by identifying a specific process as cause for a flaw, simply identifying the flaw may be all I'm looking for to help me identify the issues with my process.

Cool, that's exactly the sort of broad process issues you should expect feedback on. The harder to pinpoint things might be something like astringency. The flaw that caused it may have been an actual process issue like sparge water pH or temperature, and the judge can only guess at the several potential causes which may even include recipe issues. As long as you're not looking for specific process issues (i.e. add 10 mL of 88% Lactic Acid to your strike/sparge water), it doesn't seem like your expectations are unreasonable.

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

I don't smoke.

 

[danorocks17]

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

I'm a former smoker

 

[LKABrewer]

How many of you here are NON-smokers?

I quit smoking when I decided to become a BJCP judge. Still wish I had not smoked before that though.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Out of curiosity and not trying to be rude but what does being a smoker or non-smoker have to do with this? I smoke cigars all the time but have no issues tasting/smelling diacetyl, acetaldehyde, astringency, DMS, etc. I will hold off on the stogies leading up to judging a comp but I don't think being a smoker makes me less capable of deciphering what my palate is experiencing on a clean palate. People have different thresholds for off flavors and some are better at identifying what their senses express to them.
I realize it was just a question but I'm just hoping it wasn't alluding to the notion that smokers are automatically inferior judges.

 

[TobyG]

Is the follow-up question going to be how many of us have allergies?

 

[stpug]

Nah, it's a Bill Hicks thing:

 

[sail681]

I recently volunteered to be a steward at a First Round of the NAHB competition. It was my first experience seeing the whole process. I can totally understand all the comments in the thread, but really appreciate the effort the hosts & judges put in.

-Everyone there loves beer, including the organizers. They either brew themselves or have at least spent too much time in pubs. They 100% get that when they receive the entries they need to keep them temperature and light stable so as to not screw up the beer before its tasted.

-There are a lot of labels and double and triple checking of getting the right beer with the right sheet. That said, with 100's of bottles in the mix, the task of organizing bottles gets monotonous and I can see where an error happens. Sucks...

-Judges all had style guides available to them in hard copy but most had either their own physical binder or their e-tablet with guides on them. As they sat to judge a category there was unquestionably time that they took to read the guide and levelset themselves

-While I tasted the beers after they were done with the bottle, what I thought was good or bad did not agree with their recordings 1/2 of the time. It came down to whether the beer 'fit' the style or not. Not whether it was a beer you personally liked it. There were some beers where people said the entrant either totally missed the style or submitted it incorrectly. When you have 20 bottles in category 24 side by side, its obvious when one did not fit.

-I participated because I thought I wanted to try becoming a judge....after the experience, no thanks!!! Way too many things to learn/understand/memorize/sense.. Imagine the person going to judge the meads, pilzners then sours. Holy hard to do! lol

-These judges take their role seriously (maybe too seriously) and two judges reviewed each beer and they talked about their scoring methodology. Intriguing discussions from people that did care about the beer we submit!

Overall, does it change what everyone has said about variability...no. Just some insight from watching an event firsthand.

 

[TobyG]

Imagine the person going to judge the meads, pilzners then sours. Holy hard to do! lol

Honestly this will almost never happen. Only a complete clueless newb organizer would set up sessions like that. The notable exceptions would be unusual comps like the one I judged this past weekend (http://mellowbrewfest.com/). The entire comp was 21A, so the organizer had to make wild guesses about what order to put the beers in based on the base beer and special ingredient. Wound up being a couple curve balls in there (one that was a little overboard on the black pepper), but typically most organizers structure the sessions so that flights are separated with the lighter styles before the bolder styles.

 

[stpug]

Alright.... what happened to AnOldUR's post above? It should have been around #72. He brought up some valid points.

I agree that I see judging generally approached from the "how far a beer is from the prime BJCP example" as opposed to "how good the beer is within a range of characteristics". It's judging the delta of a beer against a model, versus judging a beer within a broad range of characteristics and how good it tastes. I recognize that the goal of a judge is the latter, but I see more of the former taking place.

But seriously, what happened to AnOldUR's post???

 

[MichaelBrock]

Out of curiosity and not trying to be rude but what does being a smoker or non-smoker have to do with this?

My guess would be the known detrimental effect smoking has on a person's sense of taste and smell. Apparently it hasn't affected yours.

 

[TobyG]

But seriously, what happened to AnOldUR's post???

He deleted it according to the status of the missing post.

 

[biereblanche]

My guess would be the known detrimental effect smoking has on a person's sense of taste and smell. Apparently it hasn't affected yours.

Non-smokers are the ones who get confused when an IPA is described as "dank." :cross:

Anecdotally: I heard from local VT judges that Greg Noonan would take cigarette breaks while judging in competition. Might not be the best approach, but he was a National judge; a well trained palate might not be as affected as you'd think.

My first competition, my judging partner was chewing gum, that sucked. Today, I would make sure he got rid of it or got kicked off the table.

 

[orangehero]

I think you guys are giving the judges too much credit.

Which judging philosophy do scoresheets like this fall into?

Literally the comments were things like "off aroma" or "off taste" and that's it.

That's the major complaint, and ridiculous scoresheets like that aren't unusual. If people take brewing seriously enough to pay money to enter it into competitions, please take judging seriously.

 

[TobyG]

I think you guys are giving the judges too much credit.

Which judging philosophy do scoresheets like this fall into?

They fall under the lazy philosophy.

 

[MichaelBrock]

Alright.... what happened to AnOldUR's post above? It should have been around #72. He brought up some valid points.

I agree that I see judging generally approached from the "how far a beer is from the prime BJCP example" as opposed to "how good the beer is within a range of characteristics". It's judging the delta of a beer against a model, versus judging a beer within a broad range of characteristics and how good it tastes. I recognize that the goal of a judge is the latter, but I see more of the former taking place

Actually, I think what you're seeing is the way it is supposed to be working. We are not judging how good a beer tastes (theoretically, a judge can competently judge a category they don't even like). We are not judging how a beer fits into a particular range of characteristics. Many beer styles can be described with identical terminology and fit into the same range of physical characteristics. We, as judges, are judging how close a beer is to the "ideal" beer(s) in the category in which the beer is entered. This is why a major component of studying for the exam is to taste and judge the exemplary beers selected by the BJCP. If you have never tasted a helles, for example, you will not be able to competently judge how good a particular example is (and I'm speaking from personal experience here). These exemplary beers define the style, not the range of OG, color, bitterness, etc. The descriptive portion of the guidelines are an attempt to describe those exemplary beers in a general enough manner that they can be used for judging.

Some judges undoubtedly compare everything against single examples of a style and of course that is wrong. The BJCP guidelines actually point out where particular examples have come to represent a style and warns against judging against that sole example.

Personally, my .02 on the whole thing, is that there are simply not enough competent judges to handle all of the judging. And the competent judges tend to be spread too thinly. I have seen competitions where only a few certified+ judges have handled all of the preliminary rounds (100s of beers) and their feedback obviously was close to useless.

The solution? Get out there and become a judge!

 

[AnOldUR]

Alright.... what happened to AnOldUR's post above? It should have been around #72. He brought up some valid points.

Sorry, I thought this thread was permanently derailed by the smoking comments. :cross:

Here it is . . .

Ultimately, it is a STYLE competition . . . On the Podcast referenced earlier, Gordon Strong stated that the commercial examples are actually listed in order of best representation in the guidelines.

Here's where I have a problem with some BJCP judging. In other interviews with Gordon, I've heard it said that it shouldn't be about making a clone of the best example. That the guidelines are broad for a reason. What should be judged the winner is the best beer that fits within the guidelines. The problem is, that’s a subjective call that many judges don’t make. Instead, they look for the clone. Everyone has favorite styles and can pick out a personal favorite from a group of beers that fits into the guidelines. But when they’re expected to judge outside of that narrow area, they fall back on the commercial examples.

Personally, I want to know that I made a great Brown Porter. Not that my Porter tastes like Fuller’s. I want the judge to first determine if the beer is in style and then make the hard call based on his perception of which one of those that do is the best.



edit to say:
hmmmm . . . sounds like every competition needs a mini BOS for each category.

 

[Wynne-R]

AnOldUR got it just right, in my opinion. Most of the time I agree with my co-judges and we can do a flight with little discussion. HOWEVER There are some old farts I butt heads with.

They think they know better than the guidelines. Maybe they do. Everyone knows there are problems with the published guidelines, as revised in 2008.

But right or wrong, it’s official. The entrants read the guidelines, everybody should be using the same playbook.

 

[TobyG]

AnOldUR got it just right, in my opinion. Most of the time I agree with my co-judges and we can do a flight with little discussion. HOWEVER There are some old farts I butt heads with.

They think they know better than the guidelines. Maybe they do. Everyone knows there are problems with the published guidelines, as revised in 2008.

But right or wrong, it’s official. The entrants read the guidelines, everybody should be using the same playbook.

Well, we get to all reboot at some point soon no doubt. I've personally had some good and bad experiences with old farts (although it's only because I took a significant pause from competitions that I'm not one of them).

 

[opiate82]

I've been playing beer-league softball for the better part of 10 years now. Year after year we run into the same incompetent umpires who continue to terribly officiate our games. When I first started I would get so mad as these umps blew calls and cost us games. I would yell, I would stomp and I would send letters to the league officials complaining about these obviously incompetent umpires.

Over the years a couple of things have really changed my perspective. First is, I realized that major league scouts aren't sitting in the stands keeping my stats. My big break isn't going to be blown by these blown calls. The other thing I realized is that the league is just as fed up with the bad umpires as the players are, but there just aren't any other umpires to fill their spots. Without the bad umpires, we don't get to play at all.

Now, when an umpire blows a call I just smile and keep playing, and when one of the quality umpires is umping one of our games I make sure to go out of my way to thank him for his effort.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Now, when an umpire blows a call I just smile and keep playing, and when one of the quality umpires is umping one of our games I make sure to go out of my way to thank him for his effort.

What a great post, reflecting a great perspective. Thanks.

 

[vikingbrewer70]

This is very interesting to me as newer brewer. I have done a fair amount of different beers and I'm getting fairly decent at it. I would like to in the future enter one of my beers into a contest to see I do with in the guidelines and against the judging good or bad. I grew up in 4H where we would always have at least one arrogant soul that thought his was the best view for us to follow, this taught me that dealing with a multiple judge system was good because u would see a ROY G. BIV perspective of what you thought was awesome .
I can tell you that dealing with people who have a group speciality like.. Guns, cars, comics,beer there's always those who feel they are tops and those of us that are new are to be dismissed as mere bugs.. I don't see that on this forum nearly as much I've directed quite a number people that aren't brewers but are interested. I hope when I go to a contest you can give me pointers


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[opiate82]

What a great post, reflecting a great perspective. Thanks.

Thank you. I think perspective is key.

I will add that I do think it is a good idea to let the league/BCJP/whatever know that there are incompetent umps/judges/whatever out there. I would hope they appreciate the feedback as well. Also remember that they probably appreciate the positive feedback just as much as the negative, and it is just as helpful, maybe even more-so.

What I really hoped to impart is to really think about what you personally are getting out of it entering whatever competitive event it is that you are entering. For me with softball I realized (finally) it wasn't winning but more the comradery with all my friends on the team, many of whom I probably wouldn't see that often if it wasn't for the weekly ritual of playing ball together as well as just getting out there and doing the best that I could. Is there a competitive side of me that still loves winning, absolutely, but at least when it comes to playing ball I (again... finally) realized that isn't the reason I play.